You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2009.
I met then-Lt Gov Pat Quinn at the Arlington Heights 4th of July parade last year. Nice guy in person and has certainly had a lot of great ideas over the years (to go along with some admittedly not-so-great showboating).
Best wishes to him as he attempts to engage in the Herculean task of righting our ship of state.
And thank you to our 59 State Senators for having the testicular, and ovarian, virility to unanimously do the bleepin’ right thing in the face of a clearly deluded executive and a sycophantic national media which collectively has no clue what their lazy selves are jabbering about.
Sen. Kotowski during the Senate impeachment trial questioning period asks, “Is it an accurate statement that the Governor said he did not want to be Governor for two more years?” [source, PDF]
Kotowski was one of the few (if not only) Dem candidates in 2006 to come right out and publicly state he refused to vote for Blago’s reelection.
Translation? ‘Buck Flagojevich.’
2008 was bittersweet in a lot of ways. I lost way too many friends and family … someone every few weeks … including my Nana, my Grandpa, my wife’s cousin, and my good friend (everyone’s good friend) Pat Botterman.
The 25th is Pat’s birthday. He would’ve been 45 and he probably would’ve been working on some mayor’s race (or two or three) and almost certainly would’ve been part of one of the campaigns for the 5th CD special election.
We miss ya Pat. Your guy had to ’settle’ for Veep last year and a bunch of other good ones won their races … some for the first time, some for a reelection. You would’ve had a blast in last year’s cycle.
Not to steal her thunder, but Pat’s very capable successor in the Wheeling Township committeeman post, Kathleen, has a few great suggestions for how to honor Sir Patrick on his birthday… Get out and bring some warm winter essentials to those in need — hats, scarves, mittens, coats. Get up and get folks in need a hot meal or coffee to fill their belly a bit. Talk to someone you might not otherwise talk to and don’t just hear what they have to say, but listen. Listen. And call your mom.
In other words, go do God’s work.
Rest in peace Botterman. And keep sending those good vibes down, man.
Anne Leary is signing on to demand that the American economy, already reeling from the Bush financial policies, continue to get flushed down the toilet. Way to support America there, conservative partisans! Even most conservative economists agree that our economy needs a jolt, lest we continue to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Then again, she is buying into her party’s partisan spin hook-line-and-stinker (amazing what you can do with video when you literally cut someone off mid-way through what they’re saying)… PS: Pres. Bush’s plans for stimulating the economy – a couple of hundred dollars in a tax rebate that went literally nowhere and a few hundred million to private banks so they can pay their execs’ million-dollar bonuses – have both failed, miserably.
Tom asks if Bush “hatred” is already subsiding and waxes melancholic about the polarizing Bush years:
Watching the inauguration had an unexpected effect on some people, particularly those who have hated him for so long. They suddenly realized that George W. Bush is not an evil man, after all. [...]
Barack Obama knows that Bush is not evil. I hope the rest of America will come to grips with that, too.
…Nevermind the fact that for 8 years in the 90s conservatives routinely called Bill and Hillary Clinton “evil”, with routine yelps of “Shrillary”, etc. emanating from conservative columnists, authors, talk radio and cable. And, really, it’s more like 16 years since conservatives never let up on the Clintons even after they left the White House. Witness Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s pointless “hold” delaying Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State just this week while a tentative cease fire was trying to take hold between Israel and Hamas.
…Nevermind the fact that for the past 8 years conservatives from the White House on down have claimed that liberals and others opposed to Bush/Cheney policies for legitimate reasons are evil, stupid, unpatriotic, terrorists, traitors, and worse.
…Nevermind the fact that conservatives themselves seem not to know how to oppose policy based on reasonable discourse and fact-based debate anymore and so simply resort to lies about Pres. Obama’s religion, upbringing, Inauguration and more.
Nope, water under the bridge at this point. Mr. Mannis doesn’t even bring up any of this vitriol that conservatives have been spewing at their fellow Americans for the past couple of decades.
Fair enough.
What’s truly ironic, however, about Tom’s wistful hope that history’s soft lens will one day declare that Pres. Bush “is not evil” is that Mannis himself sells t-shirts declaring his own ward’s Democratic alderman is evil.
Time to put aside those childish things, Tom.
And drop the Alfred E. Neuman shoulder-shrugging “Who Me?” act while you’re at it. 
Another open letter to Andy McKenna, head of the Illinois GOP, whose Bloggin on Blago Blog today got even wordier than me in an effort to try and tie Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn to disgraced and impeached numbskull Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Mr. McKenna’s GOP crew used everything from twist-ties and duct tape to twine and thread to tie Quinn to Blago, but it ain’t working so much …
You see, the Lt. Gov. is soooo closely tied to Blago (not) that the two haven’t even spoken to each other in a year or more. In fact, when the two men first ran on the statewide Dem ticket back in 2002 with others like Lisa Madigan, Dan Hynes and Tom Dart … Quinn’s photo and bio weren’t even on the friggin’ walk card.
Spin away if you must, but most folks see right through your whirling dervish act.
Conservative radio station WLS-AM has offered the guv a weekly 2-hour gig if he’ll retire and “spare the state the embarrassment and expense of forcibly removing him from office” according to a WAND-TV report on the glib offer.
Take it, guv. Maybe ‘LS will even spring to get you a mic in Club Fed once you’re there.
You could interview your Republican predecessor every week, talk about jogging in a square during recreation time or rant over how difficult it is to eat food when you’re only allowed to use a spoon.
Update 3: For some reason, our conservative friends are proving themselves incapable of using a calculator. I get that they want to squeeze every last drop of bitter spin out of this non-issue, but the level of ignorance and cognitive dissonance required to continue infopimping these spun numbers is astounding.
To recap:
- Bush’s 2005 Inauguration cost $42million for parties (privately-raised) + $115million for security (taxpayer-funded). That equals $157mil total for Bush.
- Obama’s 2009 Inauguration is estimated at $45million for parties (privately-raised) + $100-115million for security (taxpayer-funded). That estimate comes to about $150-160mil total.
In simpler terms: Bush=$157mil vs Obama=$150-160mil… (PS… Adjusted for inflation, Bush’s total 2005 Inauguration costs would be roughly $170-175mil in 2009 dollars.)
Now grow up people.
…We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog post…
President George W. Bush’s 2005 inauguration festivities cost $42 million and his 2001 celebration cost $40 million — both paid for through private donations.
President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration festivities will cost about $45 million when all is said and done — again, paid for through private donations.
Those two numbers entail the costs of all the inaugural balls, concerts, whistle-stop tours, etc. The figures do not include security costs (Secret Service, extra police, high-tech hardware, etc.)… the media has traditionally not reported on security costs for inaugurations.
But, say you want to include those security costs?
Pres. Obama’s security costs, despite the fact they aren’t actually known, are being “reported” by some traditionally conservative media outlets — NY Daily News, Drudge, Fox News, London Daily Mail. They’re adding their presumptive security costs (since no one really knows what it is) together with the original $45 million cost for the celebrations to get a “total” cost somewhere between $150-160 million.
Now, guess what conservative fibbers like the jabberwockies at Fox & Friends are doing with that highly speculative high number? Yep, you guessed it:
Did you hear that “some are saying” Barack Obama’s inauguration will cost “$160 million” …
“Why does the thing have to cost so much?” demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. “I don’t get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago.” She wondered why Obama needed “another $100 million” for his celebration.
Yeah, I don’t get why conservatives feel a need to lie about these things either. Didn’t they learn that we Americans are sick and tired of being lied to?
Just to recap…
- Bush’s 2001 Inauguration = $40 million + security
- Bush’s 2005 Inauguration = $42 million + security
- Obama’s 2009 Inauguration = $45 million + security
- Inflated, hypothetical Obama Inauguration “cost” being repeated by media as a fact? …$160 million, including barely-referenced, not-really-certain security costs
By the way, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters researched Pres. Bush’s 2005 security costs. Add his festivities in with his security costs and other details and the total comes to… $157 million. Gah.
Update: The not-so-liberal media over at CNN gets in on the faux act. Will Jack Cafferty wake up and realize the 2005 Bush inauguration cost $157mil or will he just go around repeating the as-yet-unfounded $160mil figure ad nauseum because he enjoys spreading malarkey like it’s salmonella-tainted peanut butter?
Update 2: More proof that the media isn’t all that liberal … it’s just lazy. Even the Associated Press, ABC’s “Business Unit” and MSNBC’s David Shuster and Tamron Hall have been skipping over the “research” part that’s supposed to come before the “reporting” part.
Talking heads from the “major” news outlets are quoting the half-baked con spin comparing 1/4 of Bush’s Inaugural costs to Obama’s full Inaugural costs. Yes, the numbers are accurate — but they’re also incomplete and devoid of context.
And our conservative friends are lapping it up like Pavlov’s pups.
(h/t Digby)
The lllinois Constitution gives the legislature the power to set up an impeachment process in any manner they so choose. While that open-endedness is rife with the potential for mischief (“I don’t like Gov. Smith’s suit jacket so I’m going to impeach him!”) the fact we’ve had so few impeachment proceedings in our state’s history is testament to the fact that it is politically perilous territory to mess abuse that ability.
Regardless, the lege can set up an impeachment investigation (House), draft articles of impeachment (House) and judge that investigation, those articles and the subject of the impeachment (Senate) in any way they see fit.
The Constitution says so.
And the governor swore to uphold the Illinois Constitution not once but twice.
If he didn’t like what it said about impeachment, he shouldn’t have run for an office subject to those clauses of our state’s Constitution.
In other words, boo friggin’ hoo if you don’t like that you’re being impeached, guv.
Dear media, please point out this lie:
“I think the rules the Senate adopted are unfair,” Ed Genson said.
He complained the rules prevent him from calling witnesses and cross-examining witnesses called by the senators.
Mr. Genson’s claim that the rules are unfair is an opinion… not an opinion I share, but everyone’s entitled to their own. His complaint the rules are preventing him from calling witnesses or cross-examining witnesses, however, is an out and out lie.
Fact:
Requests for subpoenas for witnesses, documents, or other materials may be made by the House Prosecutor or by the Governor or his counsel in the form of a verified written motion submitted to the Chief Justice, and a copy provided to the Secretary. The motion must incorporate a showing that the subpoena is reasonably required to obtain information that cannot be obtained through voluntary requests for information. [...]
Each witness shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing that witness and then cross-examined by one person on the other side. The Chief Justice shall permit redirect examination and may permit re-cross examination.
(h/t Rich Miller, whose signature phrase “Bite me” is quite a propos.)
117-1. State Rep. Deb Mell (the governor’s sister-in-law) was the lone “No” vote.
Rich Miller’s CapFax has a liveblog going for more info.
Update: And the Illinois Senate began its impeachment trial as soon as it received the Articles of Impeachment and House Investigative Committee reports this afternoon.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Fitzgerald was sworn in as presiding officer for the impeachment trial. The Senate issued a summons and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms served the governor with it.
And on it goes….
I’ve asked this question of others in the traditional media before. Now it’s Morning Joe’s turn…
The MSNBC talkshow host is a former Republican Congressman so he ought to know what he’s talking about, especially when it comes to morality questions like torture and government questions like US foreign policy.
Ought to, but apparently doesn’t. Here’s Joe Scarborough lying through his teeth:
And I know for a fact that waterboarding brought our interrogators, brought Americans, probably about 70-75 percent of what they get. What they got from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed opened doors that we are still going through. Waterboarding has produced and given so much evidence to our people in the CIA and in the other intelligence agencies. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed by himself has done more to crush al Qaeda than Dick Cheney or George Bush because of waterboarding.
That claim is 180° opposite what actual FBI and CIA agents have been saying for years, that torture simply doesn’t work. Maybe they could get some actionable intel … but more often than not human beings will just spout off whatever comes to mind to end the torture.
Indeed, one of the CIA agents who worked on material gleaned from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had this to say about the results from KSM’s torture sessions:
“The White House knew he’d been tortured. I didn’t, though I was supposed to be evaluating that intelligence. … It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective.” …
As for K.S.M. himself, who (as Jane Mayer writes) was waterboarded, reportedly hung for hours on end from his wrists, beaten, and subjected to other agonies for weeks, Bush said he provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.” K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”
Seems Joe Scarborough and his anti-American values, pro-useless torture conservative comrades need to be strung up by their wrists and hung from a wall… Then again they’re already feeding us “total fucking bullshit” and “telling us how stupid we are” even without torturing them.
For the record, there are forms of interrogation techniques which have proven time and again to be highly valuable in facilitating intelligence-gathering. From a former FBI agent, Jack Cloonan, who was assigned to the unit tracking Osama bin Laden:
We broke many terrorists. But we did it the right way: by being intelligent and humane.
One man we captured was Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, an al-Qaeda operative behind the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali Mohamed had fully expected to be tortured once we took him in. Instead, we assured him that we wouldn’t harm him, and we offered to protect his family. Within weeks, we had opened a gold mine of information about al-Qaeda’s operations. [...]
Let me be clear on one crucial point: it is the terrorists whom we won over with humane methods in the 1990s who continue to provide the most reliable intelligence we have in the fight against al-Qaeda. And it is the testimony of terrorists we tortured after 9/11 who have provided the most unreliable information [...]
(emphasis added to block quotes. h/t Meteor Blades.)
Update 1/14/09: added Tags and a link to Jack Cloonan’s Washington Monthly essay.
Andy McKenna puts on his best concern troll outfit and tells us:
“By failing to strip Rod Blagojevich of his senate appointment power, Democrats chose to trust a madman over the people of Illinois.”
While I agree in principle with the Republicans and others bemoaning the fact Blagojevich made an appointment to the open Senate seat and have that appointment actually stick, it’s abundantly clear given his pathological “administrative” style over the years that Blago would have found some loophole even if the state legislature had passed a bill stripping gubernatorial appointment powers or scheduling a special election.
In fact, looking at the way he’s acted in the past four weeks and you can easily imagine he would’ve signed off on such legislation an hour after making an appointment anyway. He did claim to support a special election, after all, albeit in the absence of anything to actually support. Just look at what he did to the ethics package last year by delaying it and then vetoing it with demands “to make it stronger…”
It would be much too easy for Blago to circumvent any state lege action on the open seat. The only recourse was for the US Senate to re-read Article I, Section 5 and actually do what they originally said they would: reject any Blago appointment under the provisions of “judging the return”.
Alas, twas apparently not to be.
Somewhat lost in all the Impeachment Day festivities, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) spoke to reporters today about the status of Illinois’ open Senate seat.
The Prairies State’s senior Senator and #2 guy in the Senate told the media that Gov. Blagojevich must first be removed from office and a new appointment not only made but also certified by Sec. of State Jesse White.
He apparently was reacting to news that the state Supreme Court denied Blagojevich appointee Roland Burris’ motion to force Sec. White to sign off on his appointment to the US Senate.
Key lines from Sen. Durbin and Reuters:
At this point we’ve clearly reached an impasse,” Durbin told reporters at his Chicago office.
He said the Senate seat could remain vacant until Blagojevich is removed from office and the lieutenant governor takes over, making a fresh appointment.
Good idea. Let’s hope this time the spinal transplant takes root.
Then again, the Reuters article ends by noting he claimed “the Senate cannot waive a 125-year old rule” which requires John Hancocks from both a governor and a secretary of state certifying elections and appointments. The Illinois Supreme Court did give appointee Roland Burris an “out” by suggesting that he could simply pay the standard fee to have a state document (of which Gov. Blagojevich’s appointment paper is one) certified by the Secretary of State. Sec. White could, I suppose, refuse to sign that also, but that refusal would be a direct violation of state law (if I’m interpreting the majority’s opinion correctly).
Mr. Burris could also go to Federal courts and seek to have the Senate’s long-standing rule requiring certification by both a governor and secretary of state declared unConstitutional since, really, there is nothing in the Constitution specifying such a thing. (In this regard, the Powell decision may actually be of value to Mr. Burris.)
However, if Sen. Durbin and his colleagues truly plan to reject any appointment made by the now-impeached governor, it is my very firm belief they’ll need to so because they are rejecting the appointment process … not the paperwork … not the person who was appointed.
Then we’ll get a definitive SCOTUS opinion on just what Article I, Section 5 means by each chamber of the legislature being the sole judge of “returns” — which I discussed previously.
